Special Report More efforts needed to implement the Natura 2000 network to its full potential

EN 2017 NO 01

1977 - 2017

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi 1615 Luxembourg LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1Enquiries: eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/ContactForm.aspxWebsite: eca.europa.euTwitter: @EUAuditors

More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017

Print ISBN 978-92-872-6880-8 ISSN 1831-0834 doi:10.2865/187425 QJ-AB-17-001-EN-CPDF ISBN 978-92-872-6912-6 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/217308 QJ-AB-17-001-EN-NEPUB ISBN 978-92-872-6907-2 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/033213 QJ-AB-17-001-EN-E

© European Union, 2017Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Luxembourg

More efforts needed to implement the Natura 2000 network to its full potential

(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)

Special Report

EN 2017 NO 01

02Audit team

The ECA’s special reports set out the results of its performance and compliance audits of specific budgetary areas or management topics. The ECA selects and designs these audit tasks to be of maximum impact by considering the risks to performance or compliance, the level of income or spending involved, forthcoming developments and political and public interest.

This report was adopted by Audit Chamber I — headed by ECA Member Phil Wynn Owen — which specialises in sustain-able use of natural resources. The audit was led by ECA Member Nikolaos Milionis, supported by loulia Papatheodorou, head of private office; Kristian Sniter, private office attaché; Colm Friel, principal manager; Emese Fésűs, head of task and Laure Gatter, deputy head of task. The audit team consisted of Rogelio Abarquero Grossi, Oana Dumitrescu, Florin-Alexandru Farcas, Paulo Faria, Maria Luisa Gómez-Valcárcel, Maria del Carmen Jimenez, Mircea-Cristian Martinescu, Aino Nyholm, Joachim Otto, Zoltán Papp, Anne Poulsen, Bruno Scheckenbach, Matteo Tartaggia, Diana Voinea, Anna Zalega, Dilyanka Zhelezarova and Paulina Zielinska-Suchecka. Michael Pyper assisted with drafting the report.

From left to right: L. Gatter, P. Zielinska-Suchecka, J. Otto, O. Dumitrescu, C. Friel, F.-A. Farcas, E. Fésűs, M. Pyper, N. Milionis, D. Zhelezarova, A. Zalega.

03Contents

Paragraph

Abbreviations

Glossary

I - VII Executive summary

1 - 15 Introduction

1 - 5 The EU 2020 biodiversity strategy

6 The Natura 2000 network

7 - 15 The organisation of Natura 2000

7 - 12 Responsibilities

13 - 15 Funding

16 - 18 Audit scope and approach

19 - 78 Observations

19 - 39 Member States did not manage the Natura 2000 network sufficiently well

20 - 22 Coordination between authorities and stakeholders in the Member States was not sufficiently developed

23 - 27 The necessary conservation measures were too often delayed or inappropriately defined by the Member States

28 - 34 The Member States visited did not adequately assess projects impacting on Natura 2000 sites

35 - 39 The Commission was actively supervising the implementation of Natura 2000

40 - 62 EU funds were not well mobilised to support the management of the Natura 2000 network

41 - 47 The Prioritised Action Frameworks presented an unreliable picture of the costs of the Natura 2000 network

04Contents

48 - 54 The 2014-2020 programming documents of the various EU funds did not fully reflect the needs identified in the Prioritised Action Frameworks

55 - 62 EU funding schemes were insufficiently tailored to the objectives of the Natura 2000 sites

63 - 78 Monitoring and reporting systems were not adequate to provide comprehensive information on the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 network

64 - 68 There was no specific performance indicator system for the Natura 2000 network

69 - 72 The implementation of Natura 2000 monitoring plans was inadequate

73 - 78 Incomplete and inconsistent data made the monitoring of habitats and species less effective

79 - 84 Conclusions and recommendations

Annex

Reply of the Commission

05Abbreviations

AA: appropriate assessment

CAP: Common Agricultural Policy

CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity

CF: Cohesion Fund

EAFRD: European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

EEA: European Environment Agency

EFF: European Fisheries Fund

EMFF: European Maritime and Fisheries Fund

ERDF: European Regional Development Fund

ESF: European Social Fund

EU: European Union

FP7: Seventh Framework Programme for Research

ICT: Information and communication technologies

LIFE: financial instrument for the environment

NGO: non-governmental organisation

OP: operational programme

PAF: prioritised action framework

RDP: rural development programme

REFIT: regulatory fitness and performance programme

SAC: special area of conservation

SCI: site of Community importance

SDF: standard data form

SMEs: small and medium-sized enterprises

SPA: special protection area

UNCBD: United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity

UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

06Glossary

Appropriate assessment (AA): Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive provides that any plan or project likely to have a significant impact on a site must undergo an appropriate assessment of its implications in respect of the site’s conservation objectives.

Biodiversity or biological diversity: Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) defines ‘Biological diversity’ as ‘the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems’.

Compensatory measures: measures specific to a project or plan, which are aimed at offsetting precisely its negative impact on the species or habitat concerned, so that the overall ecological coherence of the Natura 2000 network is maintained. Compensatory measures are taken independently of the project in question (including any associated mitigation measures) and are used only as a ‘last resort’ when the other safeguards provided for by the directive are ineffective and a project/plan1 having a negative impact on a Natura 2000 site has nonetheless been allowed to go ahead.

Conservation: a series of measures required in order to maintain the natural habitats and populations of species of wild fauna and flora at, or restore them to, a favourable status as defined in the Habitats Directive2.

Conservation objectives: an overall target set for the species and/or habitat types for which a site is designated, so that this site can contribute to maintaining or reaching a favourable conservation status for these habitats and species at national, biogeographical or EU level.

Conservation measures and management plans: conservation measures are positive, proactive measures aimed at contributing to the achievement of a favourable conservation status for the species/habitats present on a particular site. Although not compulsory, management plans are the most frequently used option for setting sites’ conservation objectives together with the measures needed in order to attain them.

Conservation status of a species: Article 1(i) of the Habitats Directive defines the conservation status of a species as ‘the sum of the influences acting on the species concerned that may affect the long-term distribution and abundance of its populations’ within a particular territory. Conservation status is deemed to be ‘favourable’ when:

ο population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats; and

ο the natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future; and

ο there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis.

1 Guidance document on Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, 2007/2012, European Commission.

2 Article 1 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7).

07Glossary

Deterioration: Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive and Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive provide that Member States must take appropriate steps to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species, as well as disturbance to species on Natura 2000 sites.

Infringement procedure: Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) gives the Commission, acting as the guardian of the treaties, the power to take legal action against a Member State that is not fulfilling its obligations under EU law.

Major projects: these are usually large-scale infrastructure projects relating to transport, the environment and other sectors such as culture, education, energy or information and communication technologies (ICT). Where the total cost of such projects supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and/or Cohesion Fund (CF) for the programming period 2007-2013 was more than 25 million euro in the case of the environment and 50 million euro in other fields, they were subject to an assessment and a specific decision by the European Commission. Before a major project is approved, its consistency with other EU policies (including Natura 2000) is examined. For the 2014-2020 programming period, the Commission is supported by independent experts.

Mitigation measures: measures aimed at minimising, or even negating, a plan or project’s likely negative impact on a site. These measures are an integral part of the specifications for a plan or project3.

Natura 2000: the largest coherent ecological network of conservation areas in the world, covering 18 % of land across the EU as well as substantial marine areas. Natura 2000 is a key element in the EU’s strategy to halt the loss of biodiversity and provide ecosystem services by 20204. The network is aimed at maintaining the natural habitat types and the species’ habitats concerned at, or where appropriate restoring them to, a favourable conservation status within their natural range5.

Natural habitats: areas of land or water distinguished by geographical, abiotic and biotic features, whether entirely natural or semi-natural6.

Prioritised action framework (PAF): a planning tool required by Article 8(4) of the Habitats Directive. Its principal aim is to provide an integrated overview of the measures needed in order to implement the Natura 2000 network, linking them to the corresponding EU funds and specifying their financing needs7.

3 Guidance document on Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC.

4 Special Report 12/2014 Is the ERDF effective in funding projects that directly promote biodiversity under the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020? (http://eca.europa.eu).

5 Article 3 of Directive 92/43/EEC.

6 Article 1(b) of Directive 92/43/EEC.

7 SEC(2011) 1573 final of 12 December 2011, ‘Financing Natura 2000, Investing in Natura 2000: Delivering benefits for nature and people’, p. 11.

http://eca.europa.euhttp://eca.europa.eu

08Glossary

REFIT and fitness check: as part of its smart regulation policy, the Commission has initiated a regulatory fitness and performance programme (REFIT). The aim is to make EU law simpler and to reduce regulatory costs, thus contributing to a clear, stable and predictable regulatory framework. Under the first stages of this programme, the Commission has reviewed the entire stock of EU legislation and decided on follow-up actions, one of which is a ‘fitness check’ involving a comprehensive policy evaluation aimed at assessing whether the regulatory framework for a particular policy sector is ‘fit for purpose’.

Site of Community importance (SCI): a site which contributes significantly to maintaining a natural habitat referred to in the Habitats Directive at, or restoring it to, a favourable conservation status. SCIs may also contribute significantly to the coherence of the Natura 2000 network and/or to maintaining biological diversity within the biogeographic region or regions concerned.

Special area of conservation (SAC): an SCI designated by Member States where conservation measures are taken in order to maintain the natural habitats and/or populations of the species for which the site is designated at, or restore them to, a favourable conservation status.

Special protection area (SPA): an area of land or water designated by Member States pursuant to Article 4 of the Birds Directive where special conservation measures are taken to protect specific bird species and their habitats.

Standard data form (SDF): a form drawn up pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Habitats Directive for the purpose of establishing the list of SCIs. The form records information on each site in a format determined by the Commission in agreement with the Member States, including a map of the site, its name, its location, its size and the data from the national authorities’ assessment of the site’s relative importance for the habitats and species covered by the directive.

State of nature report: every 6 years, Member States are required to report back to the European Commission on the conservation status of those species and habitats protected under the Nature Directives8 that are present on their territory. The Commission then pools all the data together, with the help of the European Environment Agency, in order to see how well they are faring across the EU. The results are published by the Commission in a report entitled The state of nature in the EU.

8 According to Article 12 of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (Birds Directive) (OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, pp. 7-25) and Article 17 of the Habitats Directive.

09Executive summary

IBiodiversity loss is one of the main environmental challenges facing the EU. A key element of the EU’s 2020 strat-egy to halt biodiversity loss and improve the status of habitats and species is the Natura 2000 network established under the Birds and Habitats Directives. These directives provide a common framework for nature protection across the Member States. Covering more than 18 % of the EU’s land area and around 6 % of the EU’s sea area, the Natura 2000 network has over 27 000 sites all over Europe, protecting diverse habitats and species. Socioeconomic activities are not prohibited on Natura 2000 sites, but Member States must ensure no deterioration of the sites and take the conservation measures needed in order to maintain or restore protected species and habitats at a favour-able conservation status.

IIThe objective of our audit was to answer the question ‘Has the Natura 2000 network been appropriately imple-mented?’ This involved examining whether the network was appropriately managed, financed and monitored. We carried out our audit work in the Commission and in five Member States, covering most of the biogeographical regions in Europe. We visited 24 Natura 2000 sites, surveyed Member States and consulted with various stakeholder groups.

IIIWhile recognising the major role played by Natura 2000 in protecting biodiversity, we concluded that the Nat-ura 2000 network had not been implemented to its full potential. Significant progress is needed from the Member States, and more efforts from the Commission, in order to better contribute to the ambitious goals of the EU 2020 biodiversity strategy.

IVMember States were not managing the Natura 2000 network sufficiently well. Coordination between relevant authorities, stakeholders and neighbouring Member States was not sufficiently developed. The necessary conser-vation measures were too often delayed or inappropriately defined. The Member States visited did not adequately assess projects impacting on Natura 2000 sites. While the Commission was actively supervising Member States’ implementation of Natura 2000, there was scope to improve the dissemination of its guidance to Member States. The Commission dealt with a high number of complaints concerning Natura 2000, generally finding solutions with the Member States but also starting infringement procedures where necessary.

10Executive summary

VEU funds were not well mobilised to support the management of the Natura 2000 network. The EU’s approach to financing the implementation of the Natura 2000 network has been to use existing EU funds. The use of these funds for the network is the competence of the Member States. We found a lack of reliable information on the costs of the network and on its financing needs from the EU budget. The prioritised action frameworks gave an incomplete picture of actual EU funding up to 2013 and of the planned allocation of funds for 2014-2020. At site level, manage-ment plans rarely gave complete cost assessments. The 2014-2020 programming documents of the various EU funds used to finance the network (notably the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the Euro-pean Regional Development Fund (ERDF)) did not fully reflect funding needs and the Commission did not address these shortcomings in a structured manner. EU funding schemes were insufficiently tailored to the objectives of the Natura 2000 sites.

VIMonitoring and reporting systems for Natura 2000 were not adequate to provide comprehensive information on the effectiveness of the network. There was no specific performance indicator system for the use of EU funds for the network. Indicators did exist at funding programme level (e.g. the EAFRD), but they related to general biodiversity objectives and focused on outputs rather than on the conservation results of the Natura 2000 network. At site level, monitoring plans were often not included in the site management documents; or when they were included, they were either not sufficiently detailed or not time-bound. Standard data forms, which contain basic data on the char-acteristics of the site, were generally not updated following monitoring activities. The data reported by the Member States for the Commission’s periodic ‘State of Nature’ report indicated trends in conservation status, but was too often incomplete, and comparability remained a challenge.

VIIWe make a number of recommendations to the Commission and Member States aimed at helping to achieve full implementation of the Nature Directives, clarifying the financing and accounting framework of Natura 2000 and better measuring the results achieved by Natura 2000.

11Introduction

The EU 2020 biodiversity strategy

01 Biological diversity, or biodiversity, refers to the variety of life on Earth. Biodiver-sity is essential to maintaining healthy ecosystems which provide us with the ba-sic natural resources and services we need to live well. In May 2011, the European Commission adopted a strategy aimed at ‘halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and restoring them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss’9. The strategy was adopted after the EU had failed, despite a detailed action plan, to meet its 2010 biodiversity target. The EU 2020 biodiversity strategy is in line with the commitments made by EU leaders in March 2010 at the tenth Con-ference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya10.

02 In order to deliver on the headline target of halting biodiversity loss by 2020, the EU biodiversity strategy sets six operational targets, comprising 20 actions. Our report focuses on the first target, which relates to the Natura 2000 network and the full implementation of the Birds11 and Habitats Directives12, widely known as the Nature Directives. These directives established the Natura 2000 network as a ‘coherent European ecological network of special areas of conservation’ (SACs)13 in order to enable the natural habitat types and the species’ habitats concerned to be maintained at or, where appropriate, restored to, a favourable conservation status within their natural range. The aim of the first target of the EU 2020 biodi-versity strategy is ‘to halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habi-tats covered by EU nature legislation and achieve a significant and measurable improvement in their status so that, by 2020, compared to current assessments: (i) 100 % more habitat assessments and 50 % more species assessments under the Habitats Directive show an improved conservation status; and (ii) 50 % more species assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved status.’ This first target comprises four actions:

ο complete the establishment of the Natura 2000 network and ensure good management;

ο ensure adequate financing of Natura 2000 sites;

ο increase stakeholder awareness and involvement, and improve enforcement;

ο improve and streamline monitoring and reporting.

9 COM(2011) 244 final of 3 May 2011 ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’, p. 2.

10 Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its tenth meeting, X/2. The strategic plan for biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi biodiversity targets, UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2, 29 October 2010.

11 Directive 2009/147/EC.

12 Directive 92/43/EEC.

13 Article 3 of Directive 92/43/EEC.

12Introduction

03 The mid-term review of the EU biodiversity strategy published by the Com-mission in October 2015 concluded that, while much had been achieved since 2011 in carrying out the actions under target 1, the most important challenges remained completing the marine element of the Natura 2000 network, ensur-ing the effective management of Natura 2000 sites and securing the necessary finance to support the Natura 2000 network.

04 Furthermore, in its most recent report14 on the status of and trends for habitat types and species covered by the Birds and Habitats Directives, the Commission concluded: ‘There are clear indications that the Natura 2000 network is play-ing a major role in stabilising habitats and species with an unfavourable status, especially where the necessary conservation measures have been implemented on an adequate scale. […] However, the overall status of species and habitats in the EU had not changed significantly between 2007 and 2012, with many habitats and species showing an unfavourable status and a significant proportion of them deteriorating still further’.

05 As part of its regulatory fitness and performance programme (REFIT) process, the Commission launched a ‘fitness check’ in February 2014 to assess the ef-fectiveness and relevance of the nature legislation. The Commission organised a conference, where the consultants presented their draft findings on 20 Novem-ber 201515, but the Commission’s fitness check had not been finalised by the time our audit work was completed in September 2016. These draft findings indicated that while considerable progress had been made in implementing Natura 2000, more progress was needed in areas such as the development of conservation measures and adequate financing mechanisms.

The Natura 2000 network

06 The Natura 2000 network16 is the centrepiece of the EU’s biodiversity strategy. The Birds and Habitats Directives provide a common EU framework that sets the standard for nature protection across the Member States. The network comprises sites of Community importance (SCIs) to be designated by the Member States as special areas of conservation (SACs) no later than 6 years after being designated as SCIs under the Habitats Directive. It also includes special protection areas (SPAs) classified under the Birds Directive. The Natura 2000 network covers more than 18 % of land across the EU and about 6 % of the EU’s sea area. It has over 27 000 sites (see Box 1), covering more than 1 million km2 of land and water17 (see Figure 1).

14 COM(2015) 219 final of 20 May 2015 ‘Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament — The State of Nature in the European Union’. This report summarises the European Environment Agency’s detailed Technical Report No 2/2015 State of nature in the EU — Results from reporting under the Nature Directives 2007-2012 (http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-nature-in-the-eu).

15 Evaluation Study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives, DRAFT - Emerging Findings, For Fitness Check Conference of 20 November 2015.

16 In this report, the term ‘Natura 2000’ refers to the network of Natura 2000 sites referred to in Article 3(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC.

17 European Commission: Natura 2000 Barometer, July 2016.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-nature-in-the-euhttp://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-nature-in-the-euhttp://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-nature-in-the-eu

13Introduction Fi

gu

re 1 Natura 2000 sites across the EU

Note: The reporting period (2012) does not include the sites added when Croatia joined the EU in 2013.

Source: European Environment Agency, The State of Nature in the EU, Technical report No 2/2015, p. 120.

Distribution of Natura 2000 sites across the EU,2012

Outside European Union

Natura 2000 sites

14Introduction

What are Natura 2000 sites?

Europe has a variety of climates, landscapes and crops, and therefore high levels of biodiversity. Natura 2000 is a correspondingly diverse European network of sites where the natural habitats and species within the Eu-ropean Union are protected. The network protects around 230 types of natural habitats and nearly 1 200 ani-mal and plant species recognised as being of pan-European importance, as well as about 200 bird species. From small sites consisting of underground caves to large sites covering several hundred thousand hectares of forests, from harbours to wilderness areas, to farmed areas, ancient open-air mines or military bases, Natu-ra 2000 sites can vary considerably in size and character.

Many sites are protected under both the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive, while a large proportion of them are also protected by other national or international designations, for example as national parks or United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) biosphere reserves.

Overall, 46 % of the Natura 2000 network is covered by forests, 38 % by agro-ecosystems and 11 % by grass-land ecosystems, 16 % by heath and scrub ecosystems, 11 % by wetlands and lake; river and coastal eco-systems also form part of the network18. Further information on the number and area of such sites in each Member State is included in Table 1 of the Annex.

Box

1

Picture 1 – Habitats for bats

Picture 2 – Habitats for bears

Source: ECA, Habitat for bats on Site 1, Poland, and for brown bears on Site 3, Romania.

18 European Environment Agency Report No 5/2012 Protected areas in Europe — An overview, p. 77 (http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/protected-areas-in-europe-2012). Please note that different classes used as proxies for the ecosystem types overlap. For example, some grassland ecosystems are also agro-ecosystems. This means a simple addition would ‘double count’ some areas.

15Introduction

The organisation of Natura 2000

Responsibilities

07 The Commission supervises the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives by the Member States. When approving the Member States’ fund-ing programmes for EU funds of the 2014-2020 period, it checked the extent to which the proposed measures and funding were consistent with the needs and objectives of the Natura 2000 network as described in the Prioritised Ac-tion Frameworks (PAFs). The Commission issues guidance documents to sup-port Member States’ implementation of the Natura 2000 network. It organises the Biogeographical Process, a forum for cooperation which covers the various biogeographical regions19 (see Figure 2) and includes seminars, workshops and cooperation activities. The Commission also handles complaints regarding the implementation of the directives and the management of sites in the Member States. When a Member State fails to comply with their obligations under the Nature Directives, the Commission may start an infringement procedure against that Member State.

08 The European Environment Agency (EEA) and its European Topic Centre on Bio-logical Diversity provide technical and scientific support to the Commission as re-gards the designation of Natura 2000 sites, providing information on the network via the Natura 2000 reference portal (a database containing site-specific informa-tion in Standard Data Forms (SDFs)). The EEA issued its second State of Nature re-port in 2015 covering the 6-year period from 2007 to 2012 inclusive. This report20, based on information officially reported by the Member States under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive and Article 12 of the Birds Directive, gives a comprehensive overview of the conservation status and trends of protected species and habitats covered by the Directives. The Agency works with other experts from the Com-mission and the Member States to develop guidelines on reporting.

19 There are 11 recognised biogeographical regions in Europe, of which nine are in the EU. These are used to describe habitat types and species which live under similar conditions in different countries: Alpine, Anatolian, Arctic, Atlantic, Black Sea, Boreal, Continental, Macaronesia, Mediterranean, Pannonian and Steppic.

20 EEA Technical report No 2/2015. The Commission summarised this report in its own state of nature report.

16Introduction Fi

gu

re 2

AlpineAnatolianArcticAtlanticBlack SeaBorealContinentalMacaronesiaMediterraneanPannonianSteppic

Outside data coverage

Biogeographic regions in Europe, 2011

Source: European Environment Agency (http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biogeographical-regions-in-europe-1).

Biogeographical regions in Europe

17Introduction

09 The Member States are responsible for establishing, managing and funding the Natura 2000 site network. They are required to establish and implement conser-vation measures to maintain or restore the protected habitats and species at a favourable conservation status. This includes avoiding significant disturbance to protected species and deterioration of protected habitats for which the sites have been designated. The responsibility for monitoring the conservation status of habitats and species may either lie with a national authority (as in France, Romania and Poland) or be devolved to regional authorities (as in Germany and Spain).

10 Any project likely to have a significant impact on a Natura 2000 site, either individually or in combination with other projects (‘cumulative effects’), must un-dergo an appropriate assessment (AA)21 to determine its implications for the site with reference to the conservation objectives for that site. Mitigation measures for reducing the negative environmental impact are generally part of a project and are examined as part of the assessment. The competent authorities can agree to the project once they are satisfied that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned.

21 Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC.

Picture 3 – Mitigation measure for wildlife

Source: ECA, Example of a mitigation measure to allow wildlife to pass under a motorway, Site 2, Romania.

18Introduction

11 In exceptional circumstances, a plan or project may still be allowed to go ahead in spite of a negative assessment, provided there are no alternative solutions and the plan or project is considered to be in the overriding public interest. In such cases, the Member State must take appropriate compensatory measures to offset the environmental impact and ensure that the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network is protected. It should also inform the Commission of the compensatory measures taken.

12 In general, the Commission has no say in approving projects, except in the case of major projects co-financed by the EU, for which the Member States must submit proposals to the Commission22. Major projects are usually large-scale infrastructure projects related to transport, the environment and other fields such as culture, education, energy, etc. Where the total costs of such projects supported through European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and/or Cohe-sion Fund (CF) aid during the 2007-2013 programming period was more than 25 million euro (for environmental projects) and 50 million euro (for other fields), they were subject to an assessment and a specific decision by the European Com-mission. Before major projects can be approved, their consistency with other EU policies, including Natura 2000, needs to be examined. The Commission also as-sesses the specific measures included in the project to mitigate or offset negative effects on the Natura 2000 sites. The Commission may conduct follow-up checks on the implementation of the mitigation measures. Proposals must include an analysis of the major project’s environmental impact, including aspects relat-ing to Natura 2000. The Commission appraises the major project in terms of its consistency with the priorities of the Operational Programme (OP) concerned, its contribution to achieving the goals of those priorities and its consistency with other EU policies.

Funding

13 The EU’s approach to financing the implementation of the Natura 2000 net-work has consistently23 been to use existing EU funds (mainly from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the structural and cohesion funds24) rather than to develop specific financing instruments (see also Table 5 in the Annex). Funds are not earmarked for Natura 2000 within the various sectoral funding programmes, but instead opportunities for supporting Natura 2000, in the context of support for biodiversity, exist under each of the relevant EU funds25. A notable exception is the LIFE26 financial instrument (dating back to 1993) which, although small, includes funds earmarked specifically for a range of Natura 2000 actions. This instrument is managed directly by the Commission. The Natura 2000 sites are also financed directly by the Member States, by international donors and by private funds. In 201027, a report drawn up on behalf of the Commission assessed the total annual cost of managing the Natura 2000 network at 5.8 billion euro. Less than 20 %28 of this amount was financed by the EU during the 2007-2013 programming period.

22 For ERDF and CF, on the basis of Articles 39 and 40 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the ERDF, the ESF and the CF and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 25) for the period 2007-2013 and on the basis of Articles 100 to 103 of Regulation (EC) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the ERDF, the ESF, the CF, the EAFRD and the EMFF and laying down general provisions on the ERDF, the ESF, the CF and the EMFF and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320) for the period 2014-2020.

23 COM(2004) 431 final of 15 July 2004 ‘Financing Natura 2000’ and SEC(2011) 1573 final.

24 The EAFRD, the ERDF, the CF and the ESF.

25 ‘Agriculture funding under the second pillar of the CAP is the most important source of support for Natura 2000 in the majority of countries’ SEC(2011) 1573 final, p. 6.

26 LIFE is the EU’s financial instrument supporting environmental, nature conservation and climate action projects throughout the EU.

27 Costs and socioeconomic benefits associated with the Natura 2000 network, Institute for European Environmental Policy, p. 1.

28 Kettunen, M., Baldock, D., Gantioler, S., Carter, O., Torkler, P., Arroyo Schnell, A., Baumueller, A., Gerritsen, E., Rayment, M., Daly, E. and Pieterse, M., Assessment of the Natura 2000 co-financing arrangements of the EU financing instrument. A project for the European Commission – final report, Institute of European Environmental Policy, Brussels, Belgium, 2011, p. 5.

19Introduction

14 Prioritised action frameworks (PAFs) have been developed by Member States with the support of the Commission as a strategic planning tool in order to define Natura 2000 funding needs and priorities at national or regional level and facilitate their integration into different EU funding instruments. PAFs were aimed at assisting Member States in drawing up their strategic/programming documents (e.g. partnership agreements, rural development programmes (RDPs) and operational programmes (OPs)) and help to make them consistent with Natura 2000 funding.

15 The first PAF exercise took place in 2012. The Commission provided the Member States with the template for the PAFs, partially filled in based on available data, and asked Member States to verify and complete the data. The agreed template for the PAF included a general description of the network at regional or national level in Member States, a description of the status of habitats and species and a description of the administrative arrangements for managing the network. One important part of the PAF related to the Member States’ current experience with the use of EU funds in order to obtain an overview of the significance of these funds for investments in Natura 2000 over the 2007-2013 programming period. The Member States also had to set out their strategic conservation priorities for the 2014-2020 programming period and the corresponding key measures for achieving these priorities, together with their planned monitoring and evaluation arrangements.

20Audit scope and approach

16 In determining the audit scope and approach, we considered the actions es-tablished under Target 1 of the EU 2020 biodiversity strategy to implement the Nature Directives (see paragraph 2). The objective of the audit was to answer the question ‘Has the Natura 2000 network been appropriately implemented?’ The main audit question was further broken down into the following subquestions:

(a) Has the Natura 2000 network been appropriately managed? In order to an-swer this question, we assessed whether the Member States had taken the necessary conservation measures and whether appropriate procedures were in place to avoid or compensate for the deterioration of the sites. At Com-mission level, we reviewed the guidance provided by the Commission, the appraisal procedures for major projects with an impact on Natura 2000 sites and the procedures for handling complaints.

(b) Has Natura 2000 been appropriately financed? We looked at the design and the use of the available EU funding for Natura 2000 sites over the 2007-2013 programming period, as well as the planned allocation for the 2014-2020 pe-riod linked to the PAFs. We focused on how Natura 2000 had been integrated into other policy instruments and how well the funded measures had been coordinated and adapted to the network’s needs.

(c) Has Natura 2000 been appropriately monitored? We examined the various monitoring tools at the disposal of the Member States and the Commis-sion and how these had been used. We assessed the performance indicator systems, the site monitoring arrangements and the system for reporting on habitats and species.

17 We focused on the overall implementation framework rather than on the con-servation results achieved for individual sites. We carried out our audit at both Commission and Member State level. We obtained evidence from five Member States (France29, Germany30, Spain31, Poland and Romania), covering eight of the EU’s nine biogeographical regions32. We visited authorities in these Member States and 24 Natura 2000 sites. We also met with representatives from various stakeholder groups, in particular farmers’ organisations and environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

18 In addition, we sent a survey to all the other (23) Member States in order to ob-tain information on their management systems and the public funding used for their Natura 2000 sites.

29 Haute-Normandie, Basse-Normandie and Languedoc-Roussillon.

30 Schleswig-Holstein and Bavaria.

31 Asturias, Madrid, Valencia and Canary Islands.

32 Our audit included Member States with territories in the Alpine region, the Atlantic region, the Black Sea region, the Continental region, the Macaronesian region, the Mediterranean region, the Pannonian region and the Steppic region. We did not visit a Member State with territory in the Boreal region.

21Observations

33 These are the ‘appropriate assessments’ required by the Habitats Directive.

Member States did not manage the Natura 2000 network sufficiently well

19 Implementing Natura 2000 requires strong coordination among a Member State’s various competent authorities and with numerous stakeholders. The conserva-tion measures necessary to maintain or restore habitats and their flora and fauna need to be taken in time and be specific enough in order to be implemented effectively. Planned projects that are likely to have a significant impact on an established Natura 2000 site need to be assessed carefully33 in light of the site’s conservation objectives. Where a project needs to go ahead on a Natura 2000 site despite potentially having an adverse impact, appropriate compensatory measures must be taken. At EU level, the Commission’s role is to support Mem-ber States to implement the directives effectively through guidance, and, where necessary, through enforcement action.

Coordination between authorities and stakeholders in the Member States was not sufficiently developed

20 A wide range of sectors are involved in managing the Natura 2000 network. These include, in particular, the environmental, agricultural, urban planning, industrial development and tourism sectors. The successful implementation of Natura 2000 requires effective coordination between sectors. We found that all of the Member States we visited had established a structure for managing the Natura 2000 network. In most Member States we visited, however, there were examples of insufficient coordination between the responsible authorities, as illustrated in Box 2.

Insufficient coordination of authorities in the audited Member States

In Romania, while the planning and funding of Natura 2000 are sufficiently coordinated at national level, cooperation and communication at regional and local level between site managers, authorities and other stakeholders (e.g. land owners) need to be improved to ensure the effective implementation of Natura 2000. For example, several sites still miss a management body, there was a lack of procedures for considering Natura 2000 in urban planning; there were also overlaps between the supervisory responsibilities of local authorities.

In France, there were coordination problems between the environmental authorities, which are in charge of Natura 2000, and the agricultural authorities, which were responsible for providing the most significant share of the EU funding used to support Natura 2000 sites. The environmental authorities had limited information regarding the implementation of agri-environmental measures by the agricultural authorities, such as the number of farmers and areas concerned, the types of measures and the amount of public money being spent on the Natura 2000 sites.

Box

2

22Observations

21 It is important that key stakeholders, and in particular land users and landown-ers, are involved in the planning and implementation of conservation measures in Natura 2000 sites so that they can understand and support the corresponding conservation objectives. The Member States organised capacity-building activi-ties, mainly in the form of training courses, at national and local level. We found an example of good practice in France where the local population was consulted (see Box 3). However, the other Member States34 we visited had not established effective channels involving regular consultations to facilitate communication with key stakeholders.

34 Germany, Spain, Poland and Romania.

Example of good practice where local land users and populations were consulted

In France, each Natura 2000 site was managed by a steering committee involving representatives from the public sector, regional authorities, community and trade associations, conservation organisations, land user organisations, etc. Being involved in the consultation in the steering committees gave stakeholders a sense of ownership of the Natura 2000 objectives.

Examples of cross-border cooperation at local level in the Member States visited

In France, the managers of one of the sites we visited had cooperated with their Spanish counterparts via the POCTEFA35 project, co-financed by the ERDF during the 2007-2013 period.

In Poland, we found examples of cross-border cooperation with Slovakia as part of an ERDF project to protect wood grouse and black grouse in the Western Carpathians.

In Romania, several LIFE projects aimed at the conservation of certain species involved neighbouring coun-tries, Hungary and Bulgaria.

35 Spain-France-Andorra cross-border cooperation programme (Programme Opérationnel de Coopération Transfrontalière Espagne-France-Andorre).

Box

3B

ox 4

22 Habitats and species are not confined by regional or national borders. Develop-ing a network of well-interconnected sites is therefore essential in order to main-tain or restore conservation status, making cross-border cooperation a necessity. There were insufficient structures at national level to promote such cooperation, and a lack of procedures for neighbouring countries to inform one another of po-tential sites, or of projects which could require assessments (see paragraph 28). However, at local level, there were some good examples of cross-border coopera-tion supported by EU funding, as shown in Box 4.

23Observations

The necessary conservation measures were too often delayed or inappropriately defined by the Member States

23 Once a site of Community importance (SCI) has been adopted by the Commis-sion, Member States should designate that site as a special area of conservation (SAC) within 6 years and apply the necessary conservation measures for all pro-tected habitats and species present on the site36. A similar protection regime also exists under the Birds Directive (see paragraph 6). Conservation measures can be presented in the form of a management plan setting the site’s conservation objectives together with the measures needed in order to attain them37.

24 There were significant delays in the designation of sites as special areas of con-servation (SACs) in most Member States. The Commission reported that, out of the 22 419 sites of Community importance (SCIs) existing in January 2010, one third had not been designated as special areas of conservation (SACs) in January 2016, i.e. beyond the expiry of the 6-year deadline. Three Member States38 had not yet designated any special areas of conservation (SACs) on time (see Table 2 of the Annex).

25 We found delays in the adoption of conservation measures in all five Member States audited. Of the 24 sites audited, conservation measures had been adopted within 6 years of the site’s designation for only eight of them. One site in Spain still lacking proper conservation measures had been designated as far back as the 1990s. The late adoption of the necessary measures is likely to jeopardise the conservation status of these sites and the overall achievement of the directives’ objectives. Furthermore, few of the management plans had been reviewed de-spite the fact that some had been drawn up more than 10 years before our audit (see also Table 3 of the Annex).

26 Conservation measures must relate to the conservation objectives defined for the site in question. However, in the Member States we visited (except Poland), the conservation objectives were often not specific enough and not quantified. This explains why in the same four Member States39, the conservation measures included in the management plans were also not precisely defined and rarely had milestones for their completion (see Box 5).

36 Article 4(4) of the Habitats Directive.

37 Managing Natura 2000 sites — The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, 2000, European Commission.

38 Malta, Poland and Romania.

39 Germany, Spain, France and Romania.

24Observations

27 We have also examined whether management plans existed and had been im-plemented at the 24 sites we visited. We found that management plans existed for only 12 sites, and that of these, implementation had not yet started for three; another four had only partially been implemented (see Table 3 of the Annex).

The Member States visited did not adequately assess projects impacting on Natura 2000 sites

28 Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive provides that any project likely to have a sig-nificant effect on a Natura 2000 site must undergo an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives (see paragraph 10). We reviewed the systems in place in the Member States for per-forming these assessments and examined 47 projects where such assessments were needed. Two of these projects were not approved to proceed following the assessment.

Examples of non-specific conservation objectives and measures

In Spain, the management plan for one of the sites audited contained general conservation objectives which did not specify either the target population to be reached for each protected species or the relevant timeframe.

The conservation measures deriving from these objectives were equally vague. One example was ‘agri-envi-ronmental subsidies are supposed to promote agricultural practices compatible with environment protection and conservation’.

Such general objectives and measures made it difficult to assess their results.

Box

5

Picture 4 – Site subject to AA

Source: ECA, urban coastal area subject to appropriate assessments, Site 5, Spain.

25Observations

29 All of the Member States visited had established systems to perform these as-sessments for projects likely to have an impact on Natura 2000 sites. However, we found that out of the 47 cases, the assessments had not been performed consist-ently and completely in 34 cases and in a further six cases there was insufficient documentation made available to conclude on the assessments (see Table 4 in the Annex). The most common weaknesses were that the assessments did not analyse the impact on all species and habitats, were not sufficiently documented, or were not performed by appropriately qualified personnel (see Box 6 for an example).

Example of inadequate assessment procedures

A project in Romania involved building a cereal storage facility. Authorisation was given subject to certain conditions, including the implementation of mitigation measures. However, these conditions were not con-sistent with the conservation measures, which included a ban on even small-scale construction and noise from machinery.

Cumulative effects not taken into account when approving projects

In Germany, one of the assessments we examined concerned the construction of a holiday resort. The project was authorised despite the local environmental authorities’ concerns regarding the potential impact on the site, particularly in light of the combined effects of a new sea bridge and the resulting additional growth in the number of holidaymakers.

In Romania, one of the assessments we examined concerned the building of a quarry. The project was au-thorised by the local environmental authority although the same authority had previously decided to allow a similar project on the condition that a maximum of only two quarries were permitted per 20 km of riverbed. We found that up to five such projects already existed in the area within around 12-15 km of riverbed.

Box

6B

ox 7

30 A key element of the 'appropriate assessment' exercise is to consider the ‘cumu-lative effects’40 of other projects. From our sample of 47 cases, we found that the Member States had not well assessed cumulative effects in 32 cases and did not keep sufficient track of other assessments for neighbouring projects. Some checks did not consider whether there were cumulative effects and some were insufficiently thorough. Consequently, there was a risk of potential impact on Natura 2000 going undetected (see Box 7).

40 ‘Cumulative effects’ refer to the combined effects of the proposed plans or projects with other plans or projects. See Section 4.4.3 of the Commission guidance on Managing Natura 2000 sites — The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/provision_of_art6_en/pdf).

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/provision_of_art6_en/pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/provision_of_art6_en/pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/provision_of_art6_en/pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/provision_of_art6_en/pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/provision_of_art6_en/pdf

26Observations

31 However, we did find examples of good practice in Member States’ approaches to dealing with the cumulative effects of projects on Natura 2000 sites, as explained in Box 8.

Database developed in Bavaria to assess cumulative effects

All appropriate assessments on a Natura 2000 site were recorded in a central database accessible to public authorities. This database facilitated the identification of projects with potential cumulative effects. The data relating to the site could be extracted and made available to private entities such as engineering firms or architects on request.

Box

8

32 Mitigation measures are usually included in a project to limit its negative environ-mental impact. They can also be imposed by competent authorities as conditions for the project authorisation. In both cases, they are an important element for the approval of the project; therefore their actual implementation should be followed up. Of the five Member States we visited, Poland and Romania did not check on the implementation of mitigation measures to address the environ-mental impact of projects on the Natura 2000 sites. Without such checks, there could not be any certainty that these measures had indeed been implemented. For example, during an on-the-spot visit on one site in Poland, we found that a mitigation measure required by the environmental authorities — the planting of trees — had not been implemented.

33 Compensatory measures are needed whenever a project needs to go ahead in the public interest despite its negative impact on a Natura 2000 site and in the absence of alternative solutions (see paragraph 11). In such cases, the Member State concerned must inform the Commission. Compensatory measures were not taken in any of the projects reviewed in the Member States visited. The number of compensatory measures that Member States reported to the Commission between 2007 and the time of the audit varied greatly. Over the thousands of Natura 2000 sites in existence (see Table 1 of the Annex) France had reported three compensatory measures, Germany 63, Poland 8, Romania 3 and Spain 11. This showed that the Member States audited might have differing approaches on how to apply compensatory measures in practice.

27Observations

34 Member States must also inform the Commission in advance of any major pro-jects financed by the structural funds (see paragraph 12). Our review of 12 major projects showed that the Commission had checked all project proposals impact-ing Natura 2000 sites and had often requested clarifications on environmental issues41.

The Commission was actively supervising the implementation of Natura 2000

35 To help the Member States implement Natura 2000 correctly, the Commission has produced relevant and detailed guidance documents42 on key aspects of the Nature Directives, and also for specific sectors43. During our audit visits, we found that the Commission’s guidance documents were not widely used in the Mem-ber States for managing sites. However, when we questioned the Member States about the Commission’s guidance in our survey, most of them44 indicated that they would welcome additional guidance.

36 In 2012, the European Commission launched the Natura 2000 Biogeographical Process, a mechanism for cooperation and networking which includes workshops and activities to enhance coherence in the management of the Natura 2000 net-work. The seminars and their accompanying documents were mostly in English. This hindered some Member States’ participation and slowed down the dissemi-nation and use of results, especially at site level.

37 The implementation of the Nature Directives is marked by a high number of complaints. The Commission developed a central registry in 2009 to record all complaints and enquiries from EU citizens and organisations. By the time of our audit, the Commission had recorded over 4 000 potential breaches of the EU’s nature legislation since the directives came into force in 1981. Most of these cases (79 %) were closed without further procedural steps. In the other cases, the Com-mission needed to further investigate the file and request additional clarification from the complainant and/or the Member State.

41 Member States are responsible for the implementation of projects financed by structural funds. The relevant Monitoring Committee performs a follow-up of the implementation of these projects, while the Commission’s status during the 2007-2013 period was that of observer.

42 The main guides are: Managing Natura 2000 sites — The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (2000) (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/provision_of_art6_en.pdf); Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites — Methodological guidance on the provisions of Articles 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (2002) (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/natura_2000_assess_en.pdf); Guidance document on Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (2007, updated 2012) (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/new_guidance_art6_4_en.pdf).

43 Guidance on aquaculture and Natura 2000 (2012) (https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/guidance-aquaculture-natura2000.pdf); Guidance document on inland waterway transport and Natura 2000 (2012) (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/IWT_BHD_Guidelines.pdf); Wind-energy developments and Natura 2000 (2011); Non-energy mineral extraction and Natura 2000 (2011) (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/neei_n2000_guidance.pdf); The implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in estuaries and coastal zones (2011) (http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/maritime/doc/guidance_doc.pdf).

44 Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Hungary, Malta, Netherlands, Slovenia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/provision_of_art6_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/provision_of_art6_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/provision_of_art6_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/provision_of_art6_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/provision_of_art6_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/natura_2000_assess_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/natura_2000_assess_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/natura_2000_assess_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/natura_2000_assess_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/natura_2000_assess_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/new_guidance_art6_4_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/new_guidance_art6_4_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/new_guidance_art6_4_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/new_guidance_art6_4_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/new_guidance_art6_4_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/new_guidance_art6_4_en.pdfhttps://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/guidance-aquaculture-natura2000.pdfhttps://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/guidance-aquaculture-natura2000.pdfhttps://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/guidance-aquaculture-natura2000.pdfhttps://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/guidance-aquaculture-natura2000.pdfhttps://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/guidance-aquaculture-natura2000.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/IWT_BHD_Guidelines.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/IWT_BHD_Guidelines.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/IWT_BHD_Guidelines.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/IWT_BHD_Guidelines.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/IWT_BHD_Guidelines.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/neei_n2000_guidance.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/neei_n2000_guidance.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/neei_n2000_guidance.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/neei_n2000_guidance.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/neei_n2000_guidance.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/maritime/doc/guidance_doc.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/maritime/doc/guidance_doc.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/maritime/doc/guidance_doc.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/maritime/doc/guidance_doc.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/maritime/doc/guidance_doc.pdf

28Observations

38 The Commission may start an infringement procedure against a Member State if it fails to implement the Nature Directives (see paragraph 7). According to several Commission sources45, since 1981 the number of cases related to the Nature Directives is the highest within the environmental sector, with a share of around 30 %.

39 The ‘EU pilot scheme’ was introduced as a pre-infringement procedure in 2008. It involves informal and bilateral dialogue between the Commission and Member State authorities on issues concerning the correct transposition or application of EU law. The Commission uses the EU pilot when it requires clarification from Member States of their factual legal position on these issues. Since 2008, 554 EU pilot files have been opened in relation to the Nature Directives, of which 78 (14 %) led to formal infringement procedures. The introduction of the EU pilots has, since 2008, resulted in efficiency gains and a drop in the number of infringe-ment cases, as only cases which could not be solved by this dialogue with the Member State concerned went further through the initiation of an infringement procedure (see Figure 3).

Fig

ure

3

Source: The ECA’s analysis, based on data provided by the European Commission.

Number of infringements opened per year in relation to the Nature Directives compared to number of infringements referred to the Court of Justice

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Infringements not referred to the Court of Justice Infringements referred to the Court of Justice

45 2014 and 2015 annual reports on monitoring of the application of Union law and other information provided by the Commission.

29Observations

EU funds were not well mobilised to support the management of the Natura 2000 network

40 The financing of Natura 2000 is mainstreamed into EU funds for which nature protection is only one of many objectives. The Member States prepare PAFs to determine the needs of the Natura 2000 network and ensure that they are matched with adequate EU funding (see paragraphs 13 to 15). These needs must then be incorporated into the programming document proposed by the Mem-ber States for each of the different EU funding instruments for the 7 years of the programming period. The specific needs of the Natura 2000 sites should also be reflected in the actual measures and projects funded.

The Prioritised Action Frameworks presented an unreliable picture of the costs of the Natura 2000 network

No reliable estimate of EU funds used for Natura 2000 for the 2007-2013 programming period

41 While there was information available on some specific measures, there were no reliable and comparable consolidated funding estimates for the implementa-tion of Natura 2000 for the 2007-2013 programming period: the reporting on the implementation of the various EU programmes did not allow the Commission to monitor the amount of EU funds devoted to Natura 2000, and this information was not provided by the PAF exercise. There were significant limitations in the data made available by the Member States. The fitness check supporting study reveals similar issues (see paragraph 5).

42 Apart from the LIFE fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) had measures dedicated only to Natura 2000 during the 2007-2013 pe-riod (measures 213 ‘Natura 2000 payments’ and 224 ‘Forest Natura 2000 pay-ments’), in addition to other measures which can benefit the Natura 2000 net-work. However, measures 213 and 224 were only used to a limited extent. In the five Member States visited, only the German Länder of Schleswig-Holstein and Bavaria and the Spanish autonomous community of Asturias had used them.

30Observations

43 EU funding is also used to support environmental measures which are not specifi-cally aimed at Natura 2000 sites. They are, however, an important source of fund-ing for the network. Due to limitations in the way actual spending is accounted for, it was often difficult to distinguish the support for Natura 2000 from the funding of other environmental actions.

44 Our survey also confirmed the lack of consistent, comparable information about public expenditure targeted on Natura 2000 during the 2007-2013 programming period, including EU funding. All Member States except Sweden reported public expenditure on Natura 2000 in our survey. Every year, EU expenditure of between 400 million euro (2007) and 2 billion euro (2013) was reported. Not all Member States were able to report data for all funds (see Table 1). Over 90 % of the ex-penditure reported in the survey was made under the ERDF, the EAFRD and LIFE.

The assessment of funding needs for the 2014-2020 programming period was not accurate or complete

45 As well as analysing Member States’ experience with the use of the EU funding for the 2007-2013 programming period, the PAFs included estimates of future funding needs, particularly in view of the 2014-2020 programming period. We found that Member States’ PAFs differed significantly as regards the quality of these estimates. Three Member States did not submit their PAF46 and six Mem-ber States47 did not provide estimates of their funding needs (either in their PAF or in their reply to our survey). In the Member States visited, these estimates of funding needs in the PAFs were not complete or accurate (see Box 9). The Com-mission undertook only a limited assessment of the PAFs and, with the exception of Spain, did not formally follow up these assessments with the Member States visited.

46 Malta, Lithuania and Croatia did not submit their PAFs.

47 Denmark, Croatia, Malta and the United Kingdom. In addition, while Cyprus and Germany referred to costs, they were out of date.

Example of an incomplete cost estimate at national level in Poland

In Poland, the cost estimates in the PAF were based on the amounts of national and EU funds used for bio-diversity protection during the 2007-2013 programming period. They covered only the sites for which man-agement plans were available. Only 44 % of sites had such plans available at the time of the audit. As the conservation measures co-financed from EU funds during the 2014-2020 programming period would be implemented over a much larger area, the costs presented in the PAF had been underestimated and there is a potential funding gap.

Box

9

31Observations

Information reported in our survey for the programming period 2007-2013

Member State / Fund name EAFRD ERDF EFF

2 LIFE ESF3 CF FP74 National Other

Belgium X X X X X

Bulgaria X X

Czech Republic X X X X X

Denmark X X X X

Germany X X X X

Estonia X X X X X X X

Ireland X X

Greece X X X X

Spain X X X X X X X

France X X X X

Croatia X X

Italy X X X X X X X

Cyprus X X

Latvia X X X X X X X

Lithuania X X X X X X X

Luxemburg X X X

Hungary X X X X

Malta X X X X X X

Netherlands X X X X X X

Austria X X X X

Poland X X X X X X

Portugal X X X X X

Romania X X X

Slovenia X X X

Slovakia X X X X

Finland X X X

Sweden1 X

United Kingdom X X

Total 24 22 9 23 5 6 4 16 10

1 Although Sweden indicated that EAFRD finances Natura 2000, it could not provide figures.2 The European Fisheries Fund.3 The European Social Fund.4 The 7th framework programme for research and technological development.

Note: A blank box indicates that the Member State did not provide figures for the relevant fund.

Source: ECA analysis.

Tab

le 1

32Observations

46 In our survey, we asked Member States whether there was a gap between their estimated funding needs for Natura 2000 and the available funds. In response, 17 Member States48 declared that such a funding gap did exist, although only three Member States49 reported the actual amount of this gap.

47 Similarly, at local level (site, authority), the costs of managing the Natura 2000 network had often not been accurately estimated and did not cover all activities (for example, the costs of establishing sites, management planning, habitat man-agement and investment costs). Only Poland prepared detailed estimates of the cost of implementing the actions envisaged in the management plans. In the four other Member States audited, the site management documents did not contain sufficiently accurate or relevant information on the resources needed to imple-ment the conservation measures. Furthermore, potential sources of funding were usually not precisely identified in these four Member States. These weaknesses could lead to inefficient management planning and insufficient programming of the funds available.

The 2014-2020 programming documents of the various EU funds did not fully reflect the needs identified in the Prioritised Action Frameworks

48 Member States were asked to submit their PAFs in 2012 so that they would be available sufficiently in advance of the submission of the operational pro-grammes and rural development programmes for the 2014-2020 programming period (see paragraph 15). Funding commitments were therefore established while adopting the relevant EU funding programmes.

49 Natura 2000 was just one of the many objectives in these programmes. As funds were generally not earmarked for Natura 2000 in the various programmes, the Commission cannot easily assess whether the costs of managing the network estimated in the PAFs had been fully taken into account in the Member States’ proposed allocation in the 2014-2020 programming documents. Also, environ-mental and biodiversity measures do not always specify the extent to which they apply to Natura 2000 areas (see paragraph 43).

48 Belgium (Flanders), Czech Republic, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Austria, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

49 Italy, Latvia, Finland.

33Observations

50 Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Hungary and the United Kingdom.

51 Small- and medium-sized enterprises.

52 Germany, Spain and France.

53 DG Agriculture and Rural Development, DG Regional and Urban Policy, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, DG Environment.

54 The issues signalled by DG Environment included: for Poland, not all measures identified in the detailed PAF were reflected in the RDPs; in Romania, the RDP did not specify how the needs of Natura 2000 would be addressed; in France, there was a lack of information in the RDPs on funding for Natura 2000.

55 This conclusion is also corroborated by the findings included in a report prepared for the Commission in 2016, Integration of Natura 2000 and biodiversity into EU funding (EAFRD, ERDF, CF, EMFF, ESF). See p. 52: ‘Integration of priorities, specific objectives and measures linked to Natura 2000 […] has been achieved to varying degrees in the national programmes analysed […] in general the planned measures do not cover all the needs identified in the PAFs for all habitats and species that require conservation or restoration actions’.

50 The ERDF programming period for 2014-2020 included a new category specifical-ly for Natura 2000 (086) and maintains a category for biodiversity which may also fund Natura 2000 (085). Five Member States50 do not plan to use category 086, and all but one plan to use category 085. The ‘thematic concentration’ require-ment meant that 80 % to 50 % of ERDF funds for the more developed and less developed regions, respectively, had to be used for actions relating to research and innovation, SMEs51, competitiveness, the low carbon economy and informa-tion and communication technologies (ICT). Biodiversity was not included in the thematic concentration as a policy choice.

51 In Member States where operational programmes and rural development pro-grammes were regionalised52 but the PAF had been developed at national level, it was impossible to assess whether the objectives and the planned use of the funds had been consistent with the PAF. The manner of implementation also var-ied from one region to another; this made it difficult to gain an overview of the coherence and consistency.

52 Various Commission directorates-general53 cooperate on the approval of OPs and RDPs. DG Environment checks the consistency of these documents with the EU’s environmental policies, priorities and objectives, including Natura 2000, and ad-dresses comments to other directorates-general and to Member States.

53 DG Environment did not take a structured approach when analysing program-ming documents for OPs and RDPs to support its consultations with the other Commission DGs. As a result, we found significant variability in the extent and quality of the Commission’s analysis of Member States’ draft programming documents in terms of their consistency with PAFs and their actions to support Natura 2000.

54 Finally, we found that the approved programming documents did not necessarily reflect the Natura 2000 needs identified in the PAFs and indicated by DG Environ-ment during its consultations with other Commission services54. Overall, the PAFs’ incomplete or inaccurate information, combined with their insufficient integra-tion with the programming documents for the 2014-2020 funding period55, has limited their usefulness as a means of ensuring the consistency of EU funding for Natura 2000.

34Observations

EU funding schemes were insufficiently tailored to the objectives of the Natura 2000 sites

55 Because of the limited integration of Natura 2000 with the EU funding schemes, there is a risk of the available funds being insufficiently adapted to the sites’ needs. We assessed whether the funding schemes most used for the network were sufficiently adapted and coordinated for the purpose of achieving the con-servation objectives.

56 The results of the survey highlighted that the EAFRD, ERDF and LIFE funds pro-vided more than 90 % of the EU’s financing for Natura 2000 (see paragraph 44). The Member States also indicated that the main management activity financed by these funds was ongoing habitat management and site monitoring (see Figure 4).

Fig

ure

4 Overview of EU and Member State expenditure for management activities on the sites reported in the survey

Source: ECA’s analysis.

Ongoing habitat management and monitoring - 74 %

Investment costs - 14 %

Management planning - 10 %

Establishment of Natura 2000 sites - 2 %

35Observations

57 The most important EAFRD measure in terms of financing habitat management on Natura 2000 sites was the agri-environment measure (measure 214), which accounted for more than 50 % of this fund. The specific ‘Natura 2000 payments’ (measures 213 and 224) represented only 7 % of the reported funding.

58 The design of the rural development funding schemes did not always take into account the specific characteristics of the sites and their conservation objectives, as the majority of the schemes covered only some of the species and habitats of interest (see Box 10). The lack of complete consistency between rural develop-ment funding schemes and environmental issues has been raised as an issue before by the Court in several of our special reports dealing with water policy56.

56 Special Report 4/2014 Integration of EU water policy objectives with the CAP: a partial success, see paragraph 83; Special Report 23/2015 Water quality in the Danube river basin: progress in implementing the water framework directive but still some way to go, see paragraphs 187 and 188; and Special Report 3/2016 Combating eutrophication in the Baltic Sea: further and more effective action needed, see paragraph 124 (http://eca.europa.eu).

Examples of specific characteristics of Natura 2000 sites not taken into account for the EAFRD funding scheme

In Poland, the requirements linked to agri-environmental payments did not cover all the species present on one site, or that site’s specific characteristics. A nature reserve in the Alpine biogeographic region was includ-ed in the Natura 2000 network due to the presence of dozens of bird species, such as the black grouse (Tetrao tetrix) and the corn crake (Crex crex). The specific requirements for the agri-environment measure referred only to the corn crake. The requirements relating to the corn crake, such as grass-cutting periods, are not compat-ible with the requirements for the black grouse, but this was not taken into account in the agri-environmental requirements.

On the same site, the private parcels used for agricultural land were usually very small, narrow and long; their width on farmland often did not exceed a few metres. There were around 38 000 such parcels on this site, and the average area of these parcels was 0.22 ha. The farmers concerned could receive agri-environmental payments if the overall area of their agricultural holdings amounted to at least 1 ha. However, as most farm holdings in this area were smaller than 1 ha, most parcels on the site were not eligible for agri-environmental support.

In Romania, there were agri-environmental measures targeting some of the species present on one site we visited, such as the lesser grey shrike (Lanius minor) and the red-footed falcon (Falco vespertinus). The re-quirements for these measures did not take into account the relevant conservation measures set out in the management plan (e.g. limiting the expansion of agricultural crops and grazing during certain periods). The effectiveness of the measure had also been adversely affected by the fact that these agri-environmental re-quirements covered only 11.2 % of the agricultural land on the site.

Box

10

http://eca.europa.euhttp://eca.europa.eu

36Observations

59 We found cases where the compensation provided under the EAFRD or the EFF did not fully cover the financial losses resulting from compliance with Natu-ra 2000 requirements. This did not encourage participation in the programmes. For instance, for aquaculture farming in Poland, farmers were eligible for EFF pay-ments if their ponds were located in Natura 2000 areas. The financial losses from protecting the birds on the ponds were higher than the compensation received57. Also, similar compensation was given only for 2 years in Romania.

60 We also found good examples of funds targeting conservation actions (see Box 11).

61 Overall, we found that LIFE projects gave the greatest incentive for practices pro-moting biodiversity; however, because funding is linked to project duration, their sustainability often depends on the availability of a more permanent source of funding58. In general, the ERDF and LIFE are designed to complement each other; however, we also identified some coordination issues between LIFE and ERDF actions, since both can involve similar actions to develop management plans or certain conservation measures. For example, a LIFE project on a Natura 2000 site we visited financed a new study on the conservation of the brown bear (Ursus arctos) in Romania, even though similar studies had previously been funded by other LIFE and ERDF projects.

Examples of ERDF and LIFE projects targeted at conservation actions

In Romania and Poland, the ERDF sectoral operational programmes59 relating to the environment specifically addressed the management of the Natura 2000 network by funding the development of site management plans.

LIFE projects were also used, particularly in Spain where they funded the protection of a rare bird species, the ‘urogallo’ (Tetrao urogallus), as well as a research programme to identify potential maritime Natura 2000 sites.

59 2007PL161PO002; 2007RO161PO004.

Box

11

57 Andrzej Martyniak, Piotr Hliwa, Urszula Szymańska, Katarzyna Stańczak, Piotr Gomułka, Jarosław Król, Próba oszacowania presji kormorana czarnego Phalacrocorax carbo (L. 1758) na ichtiofaunę wód na terenie Stowarzyszenia Lokalna Grupa Rybacka ‘Opolszczyzna’ oraz Stowarzyszenia Lokalna Grupa Rybacka ‘Żabi Kraj’ (ISBN 978-83-939958-0-6), in English ‘An attempt to estimate the pressure of black cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo (L. 1758) on the ichthyofauna of waters in the area of the Association of Local Fisheries Group “Opole region” and the Association of Local Fisheries Group “Frog Country’’’ (http://www.lgropolszczyzna.pl/pobierz1/00-broszura-Raport_Kormoran-web.pdf).

58 Special Report 11/2009 The sustainability and the Commission’s management of the LIFE-Nature projects (http://eca.europa.eu).

http://www.lgropolszczyzna.pl/pobierz1/00-broszura-Raport_Kormoran-web.pdfhttp://www.lgropolszczyzna.pl/pobierz1/00-broszura-Raport_Kormoran-web.pdfhttp://www.lgropolszczyzna.pl/pobierz1/00-broszura-Raport_Kormoran-web.pdfhttp://www.lgropolszczyzna.pl/pobierz1/00-broszura-Raport_Kormoran-web.pdfhttp://eca.europa.euhttp://eca.europa.eu

37Observations

Monitoring and reporting systems were not adequate to provide comprehensive information on the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 network

63 The purpose of monitoring and reporting systems is to keep the Commission and the Member States informed on the progress of the Natura 2000 network and to provide a framework for appropriate management action. Several monitoring and reporting activities are relevant for Natura 2000 implementation. As regards EU funds, monitoring at programme level should provide information on the implementation of a programme and its priority axes: performance indicators should provide reliable and timely data on whether the measures supporting the Natura 2000 network are producing the expected outputs, results and impact. At site level, monitoring of the conservation measures should take place in order to assess their effectiveness and results. This performance information may also trigger an update to the relevant site’s standard data form (see paragraph 8), which describes the main characteristics of that site, including data on its pro-tected habitats and species. Finally, Member States should monitor and report on the conservation status of protected habitats and species, which is then summa-rised in the state of nature report, presenting the status and trends at EU level.

62 Result-oriented measures have the potential to be more effective. However, they require robust preparation, particularly in terms of gathering ecological knowl-edge, building administrative capacity60 and defining the appropriate monitoring indicators to ensure their controllability at a reasonable cost. While nine Member States61 including Germany used EU funds for such schemes, the two German regions that were visited financed such measures using their own funds (see Box 12).

Box

12 A result-oriented programme in Germany

In Schleswig-Holstein, the Wiesenbrüterprogramm (grassland birds programme), which paid compensation only if birds had appeared on the plot concerned and protective measures had been taken, was funded purely from national and regional resources. This type of measure was not supported by EU funding, because re-gional authorities considered that its adequate controllability could not be ensured at a reasonable cost.

60 Biodiversity protection through results-based remuneration of ecological achievement, Institute for European Environmental Policy, December 2014, European Commission.

61